Once I read a book in which someone had a magnet on his fridge with the quote
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference."
I can't remember the title of the book or the writer, but that text always stayed with me. It is such a strong message if you're feeling overwhelmed.
But there are things I think are wrong with Stoicism. I do understand what Seneca meant when he said that he pitied the people who never experienced hardship, and I do agree that you do need some to develop character, but too much will worsen the negative reactions individuals have on certain circumstances. You also need anger, fear and other unfavourable emotions to act swiftly when there is a threat. Unlearning this while making it a habit to take the time to decide to consider what to do or feel might make a difference you don't want.
Stoicism in my opinion only works positively in a scholarly environment, or when you're affected by happenings you should not be influenced by. And even then, trying to control, and succeeding to control your emotional reactions might suck the life out of the experiences you have while reading a book or listening to music.
Anyway, my opinion might be influenced by my own failure to moderate my emotions. I cried while watching a movie in public a while ago. It was not pleasant.
-
Jonathan, I am hoping you're going to write more for CL, this was a great read.
If I remember correctly that is known as the Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr. I believe there is a longer version which is heavily Christian, though Christianity did borrow a lot from Stoicism itself, among other things.
Stoicism is certainly far from perfect and I am very much looking forward to seeing John's article on Zen Buddhism. Though I disagree with you slightly. Seneca isn't suggesting you need to seek extreme suffering to harden oneself, or to say that your suffering will never affect you. But, because suffering is inevitable, there are things you can to do fortify yourself against them.
It's goal is not to create dispassion towards life, but to domesticate your emotions so they do not rule you.
Additionally, things like fear or anger are considered neither voluntary or controlled at will. Essentially, things like fear forestall rational thought momentarily and stoics believed those feelings should be analysed so as not to assent to them. But, if you're interested to read more about what stoics thought on Fear or Anger I would recommend reading about 'propatheiai' or proto-passions. Seneca mentions them in 'On Anger'.
Lastly, I sympathise with emotional control. I suffer from borderline personality disorder which effects my ability to regulate my emotional response to situation, essentially meaning I don't always have the appropriate emotional responses. I have personally found that Stoicism, along with other things (such as a diagnosis of BPD) have really helped contribute a lot to improving my overall mental well being. It is why I was quite passionate about writing an article to introduce some of the concepts.
So I've just had the time to read Seneca's 'On Anger'. Got to love the internet sometimes, I found the complete essay in a .pdf online.
I admit stoicism regarding the 'proto-passions' is more nuanced than I thought. Still, there are a few points in there which caught my attention. In my opinion, it comes across as something meant for a politician or a public figure, rather cold, calculating, and distant.
Although there is some good advice in there, like book 2, 29;
"The greatest remedy for anger is delay: beg anger to grant you this at the first, not in order that it may pardon the offence, but that it may form a right judgment about it :- if it delays, it will come to an end. Do not attempt to quell it all at once, for its first impulses are fierce; by plucking away its parts we shall remove the whole."
and of course the lovely point 17 from the same book;
"“An orator,” says our opponent, “sometimes speaks better when he is angry.” Not so, but when he pretends to be angry: for so also actors bring down the house by their playing, not when they are really angry, but when they act the angry man well: and in like manner, in addressing a jury or a popular assembly, or in any other position in which the minds of others have to be influenced at our pleasure, we must ourselves pretend to feel anger, fear, or pity before we can make others feel them, and often the pretence of passion will do what the passion itself could not have done."
But there is also in book 2, 25 something what I must have read somewhere before, perhaps in Seneca's letters, on which I must have based the idea that Stoicism welcomed suffering:
"Nothing, therefore, nourishes anger more than excessive and dissatisfied luxury: the mind ought to be hardened by rough treatment, so as not to feel any blow that is not severe."
Admittedly, when I talked to a friend about this essay the first thing he said to me was that I should stop reading these sort of things like it was meant to be a dogma and see it more as a guideline you could apply to your own life, so I might have been a bit of an idiot. I often am.
[Also, book 3, the last bit of 15. I can't disagree with what he's saying, and he certainly has a way with words, but goodness me. I sometimes forget how different we look at things like that nowadays.]
I still dislike the idea of Stoicism. I think I understand the reasoning behind the philosophy, and while I do agree that one should be able to control their emotions to a certain extent, it still seems to me that this philosophy persues a form of 'human perfection' by smothering the emotions it perceives as negative with reason before they can be a part of you. If it works for you than it works for you, I'm certainly not going to dispute that fact. But I prefer the emotional rollercoaster, even if it might cause me unnecessary suffering.
For me it is quite difficult to understand exactly why Stoicism rubs me the wrong way, I literally sat with my hands in my hair while thinking about it, which is used as an expression in my language to describe that you're at your wits end. Haha! It was much appreciated.
Beautiful breakdown of stoicism. In my practice, I am a big fan of using a therapeutic model called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy which operates based on a lot of the same basic truths and observations of mankind. It looks a lot like ancient stoicism put into therapeutic practice in parts of the process (also one of the few therapeutic models to be heavily researched, empirically based, & quite successful treating many issues which should affirm your suggestion of it being quite useful).
Side note: Isn’t it interesting that more & more people seem to be turning back to ancient truths and understandings of the world to navigate this very strange moment we’re experiencing?
I really enjoyed this article! I am often amazed by how culturally widespread the idea of stoicism really is. For exemple chapter 3, verse 19 of the Bhagavad Gita: "Therefore, giving up attachment, perform actions as a matter of duty because by working without being attached to the fruits, one attains the Supreme." The house I was in at my high school was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, and hence our motto was "It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves." Or in other words: "Not the mountain is too large, but the mountaineer". ;-)
Once I read a book in which someone had a magnet on his fridge with the quote
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference."
I can't remember the title of the book or the writer, but that text always stayed with me. It is such a strong message if you're feeling overwhelmed.
But there are things I think are wrong with Stoicism. I do understand what Seneca meant when he said that he pitied the people who never experienced hardship, and I do agree that you do need some to develop character, but too much will worsen the negative reactions individuals have on certain circumstances. You also need anger, fear and other unfavourable emotions to act swiftly when there is a threat. Unlearning this while making it a habit to take the time to decide to consider what to do or feel might make a difference you don't want.
Stoicism in my opinion only works positively in a scholarly environment, or when you're affected by happenings you should not be influenced by. And even then, trying to control, and succeeding to control your emotional reactions might suck the life out of the experiences you have while reading a book or listening to music.
Anyway, my opinion might be influenced by my own failure to moderate my emotions. I cried while watching a movie in public a while ago. It was not pleasant.
-
Jonathan, I am hoping you're going to write more for CL, this was a great read.
If I remember correctly that is known as the Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr. I believe there is a longer version which is heavily Christian, though Christianity did borrow a lot from Stoicism itself, among other things.
Stoicism is certainly far from perfect and I am very much looking forward to seeing John's article on Zen Buddhism. Though I disagree with you slightly. Seneca isn't suggesting you need to seek extreme suffering to harden oneself, or to say that your suffering will never affect you. But, because suffering is inevitable, there are things you can to do fortify yourself against them.
It's goal is not to create dispassion towards life, but to domesticate your emotions so they do not rule you.
Additionally, things like fear or anger are considered neither voluntary or controlled at will. Essentially, things like fear forestall rational thought momentarily and stoics believed those feelings should be analysed so as not to assent to them. But, if you're interested to read more about what stoics thought on Fear or Anger I would recommend reading about 'propatheiai' or proto-passions. Seneca mentions them in 'On Anger'.
Lastly, I sympathise with emotional control. I suffer from borderline personality disorder which effects my ability to regulate my emotional response to situation, essentially meaning I don't always have the appropriate emotional responses. I have personally found that Stoicism, along with other things (such as a diagnosis of BPD) have really helped contribute a lot to improving my overall mental well being. It is why I was quite passionate about writing an article to introduce some of the concepts.
Thank you for the kind words, time will tell. ^_^
So I've just had the time to read Seneca's 'On Anger'. Got to love the internet sometimes, I found the complete essay in a .pdf online.
I admit stoicism regarding the 'proto-passions' is more nuanced than I thought. Still, there are a few points in there which caught my attention. In my opinion, it comes across as something meant for a politician or a public figure, rather cold, calculating, and distant.
Although there is some good advice in there, like book 2, 29;
"The greatest remedy for anger is delay: beg anger to grant you this at the first, not in order that it may pardon the offence, but that it may form a right judgment about it :- if it delays, it will come to an end. Do not attempt to quell it all at once, for its first impulses are fierce; by plucking away its parts we shall remove the whole."
and of course the lovely point 17 from the same book;
"“An orator,” says our opponent, “sometimes speaks better when he is angry.” Not so, but when he pretends to be angry: for so also actors bring down the house by their playing, not when they are really angry, but when they act the angry man well: and in like manner, in addressing a jury or a popular assembly, or in any other position in which the minds of others have to be influenced at our pleasure, we must ourselves pretend to feel anger, fear, or pity before we can make others feel them, and often the pretence of passion will do what the passion itself could not have done."
But there is also in book 2, 25 something what I must have read somewhere before, perhaps in Seneca's letters, on which I must have based the idea that Stoicism welcomed suffering:
"Nothing, therefore, nourishes anger more than excessive and dissatisfied luxury: the mind ought to be hardened by rough treatment, so as not to feel any blow that is not severe."
Admittedly, when I talked to a friend about this essay the first thing he said to me was that I should stop reading these sort of things like it was meant to be a dogma and see it more as a guideline you could apply to your own life, so I might have been a bit of an idiot. I often am.
[Also, book 3, the last bit of 15. I can't disagree with what he's saying, and he certainly has a way with words, but goodness me. I sometimes forget how different we look at things like that nowadays.]
I still dislike the idea of Stoicism. I think I understand the reasoning behind the philosophy, and while I do agree that one should be able to control their emotions to a certain extent, it still seems to me that this philosophy persues a form of 'human perfection' by smothering the emotions it perceives as negative with reason before they can be a part of you. If it works for you than it works for you, I'm certainly not going to dispute that fact. But I prefer the emotional rollercoaster, even if it might cause me unnecessary suffering.
For me it is quite difficult to understand exactly why Stoicism rubs me the wrong way, I literally sat with my hands in my hair while thinking about it, which is used as an expression in my language to describe that you're at your wits end. Haha! It was much appreciated.
This is a wonderful article. Thank you so much for sharing.
Beautiful breakdown of stoicism. In my practice, I am a big fan of using a therapeutic model called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy which operates based on a lot of the same basic truths and observations of mankind. It looks a lot like ancient stoicism put into therapeutic practice in parts of the process (also one of the few therapeutic models to be heavily researched, empirically based, & quite successful treating many issues which should affirm your suggestion of it being quite useful).
Side note: Isn’t it interesting that more & more people seem to be turning back to ancient truths and understandings of the world to navigate this very strange moment we’re experiencing?
Thank you and to John for hosting.
As they say, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana.
I really enjoyed this article! I am often amazed by how culturally widespread the idea of stoicism really is. For exemple chapter 3, verse 19 of the Bhagavad Gita: "Therefore, giving up attachment, perform actions as a matter of duty because by working without being attached to the fruits, one attains the Supreme." The house I was in at my high school was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, and hence our motto was "It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves." Or in other words: "Not the mountain is too large, but the mountaineer". ;-)